[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                  THE RISE IN ORGANIZED RETAIL CRIME AND 
                       THE THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND FEDERAL 
                         GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                         TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-27

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
     
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
         
               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
               
                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
52-734                      WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
              
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking 
KEN BUCK, Colorado                       Member
MATT GAETZ, Florida                  ZOE LOFGREN, California
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana              SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                  STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin                   Georgia
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ADAM SCHIFF, California
CHIP ROY, Texas                      ERIC SWALWELL, California
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           TED LIEU, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana             PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin          J. LUIS CORREA, California
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
BEN CLINE, Virginia                  JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey            MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
TROY NEHLS, Texas                    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
KEVIN KILEY, California              CORI BUSH, Missouri
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             GLENN IVEY, Maryland
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               Vacancy
LAUREL LEE, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina

                                 ------                                

                                 ------                                

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND FEDERAL
                        GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE

                       ANDY BIGGS, Arizona, Chair

MATT GAETZ, Florida,                 SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas, Ranking 
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin                   Member
TROY NEHLS, Texas                    LUCY McBATH, Georgia
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
KEVIN KILEY, California              CORI BUSH, Missouri
LAUREL LEE, Florida                  STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
                                         Georgia

               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
          AMY RUTKIN, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
                           
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                         Tuesday, June 13, 2023

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Andy Biggs, Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime and 
  Federal Government Surveillance from the State of Arizona......     1
The Honorable Eric Swalwell, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of California.........................     4

                               WITNESSES

The Hon. Kris Kobach, Attorney General, Kansas
  Oral Testimony.................................................     6
  Prepared Testimony.............................................     9
Lorie Mohs, Newark, California
  Oral Testimony.................................................    13
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    15
John Flynn, President, National District Attorney Association
  Oral Testimony.................................................    18
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    20
The Hon. John Milhiser, Former United States Attorney, Central 
  District, Illinois
  Oral Testimony.................................................    27
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    29

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on 
  Crime and Federal Government Surveillance are listed below.....    47

Materials submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs, Chair of the 
  Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance from 
  the State of Arizona, for the record
    A statement from the National Retail Federation, June 13, 
        2023
    A letter from Shawn Galey, Vice President & Chief Legal 
        Officer, CHEP USA, June 12, 2023
An article entitled, ``Serial Retail Theft Suspect: Milwaukee DA 
  Fails to Chargeat Least 14 Cases [NO PROCESS FILES],'' Dec. 22, 
  2021, Wisconsin Right Now, submitted by the Honorable Tom 
  Tiffany, a Member of the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal 
  Government Surveillance from the State of Wisconsin, for the 
  record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Ranking 
  Member of the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government 
  Surveillance from the State of Texas, for the record
    A letter from Trevor Wagener, Chief Economist and Director, 
        Research Center, Computer & Communications Industry 
        Association, June 9, 2023
    An article entitled, ``The Great Shoplifting Freak-Out: Why 
        is it so hard to figure out if America's enormous surge 
        in theft is real?,'' Dec. 23, 2021, The Atlantic
    A statement from the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Ranking 
        Member of the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal 
        Government Surveillance from the State of Texas

 
   THE RISE IN ORGANIZED RETAIL CRIME AND THE THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, June 13, 2023

                        House of Representatives

       Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:39 p.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Andy Biggs 
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Biggs, Tiffany, Moore, Kiley, Lee, 
Fry, Jackson Lee, Dean, and Cicilline.
    Also present: Representative Swalwell.
    Mr. Biggs. The Subcommittee will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess at any time.
    We will now have the Pledge of Allegiance led by 
Representative Moore from Alabama.
    All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States 
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one 
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for 
all.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Moore.
    We welcome everyone to today's hearing on organized retail 
crime and threats to public safety.
    Without objection, the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Swalwell will be permitted to participate in today's hearing.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    I'm pleased to be here at the Subcommittee hearing. I'm 
grateful to all the witnesses for being here. The topic before 
us today is a hearing titled ``The Rise in Organized Retail 
Crime and the Threat to Public Safety.''
    Organized retail crime is a growing threat to our retailers 
and their employees, our law enforcement, and our communities. 
The fact that we are having this hearing in some ways is very 
disappointing. We used to be a country that adhered to the rule 
of law. We used to be a country of sharing and a sense of trust 
and respect for our fellow Americans, and that trust and 
respect in many respects seems to be gone, and so too is the 
rule of law. When the rule of law is gone, it threatens our 
very freedom.
    Three years ago during the summer of love our country 
burned and our stores were looted. Consequences seemed to have 
been few. Organized retail crime has become a growing problem 
over these past three years because criminals see the 
opportunity for profit and know they can get away with it.
    Lululemon--I'm not even sure how you say that. Yes, 
Lululemon, yes. I actually think I had a relative who worked 
for Lululemon. Anyway, nonetheless, Lululemon CEO Calvin 
McDonald stood by the retailer's recent decision to fire two 
employees who tried to intervene during a theft at one of its 
stores.
    California is in the process of passing laws prohibiting 
retail employers from training employees to actually intervene 
in shoplifting and active shooters. That's their SB-553.
    We are coddling criminals and flaming the flames of this 
problem, and it is open season on our stores. Criminal 
syndicates are taking advantage.
    The National Retail Federation found that eight in ten 
retailers said that violence and aggression associated with 
organized retail crime incidents increased in the past year. 
Organized retail crime can happen in as little time as just two 
minutes.
    A CVS executive recently testified that organized retail 
crime events are reported in a CVS pharmacy store every three 
minutes. In just two minutes, the average professional thief 
targeting CVS steals $2,000 worth of goods; two minutes, $2,000 
worth of goods. These are not cases of simple shoplifting.
    The Biden Administration and rogue Democrat prosecutors 
have eroded law and order in this country creating an 
environment where retail workers are terrified to go to work. 
The rise in organized retail crime is causing businesses to 
close and endangers the public.
    Walmart, for example, is losing $3 billion per year in U.S. 
revenue due to theft and is considering closing stores and 
increasing prices due to the severity of theft across the 
country.
    Who pays the price? Well, consumers do. Consumers are 
paying to cover the losses by retailers. With Biden's historic 
inflation, that becomes an extra challenge, particularly for 
those who are poor.
    Let's hear how retail CEOs and others in the retail 
industry State the problem. Bob Nardelli, the former Home Depot 
COE, stated:

        Today this thing is an epidemic. It's spreading faster than 
        COVID. The degree of severity now is not just theft. It's smash 
        and grab. Our associates are afraid. The retail salespeople are 
        afraid. Consumers are afraid. We've got to get control of this. 
        If the administration doesn't get control of this, they're 
        abdicating it to the businesses, both public and private.

Bob Eddy, BJ's CEO, stated:

        Organized retail crime is definitely a thing. We see it, and it 
        is material. It is a much more poignant problem in certain 
        places, particularly on the West Coast or places like Chicago 
        or Albuquerque that have blue State or local blue governments 
        that don't really feel like prosecuting crime.

We have a poster behind me. Ira Kress, President of Giant Food, 
has posted this particular message in his supermarkets:

        You may notice changes to your checkout experience as you are 
        shopping with us today. Due to a significant increase in crime 
        and theft that we and many other retailers are experiencing 
        across our market area, we have made several changes to 
        operating procedures to mitigate the impact of theft to our 
        business. We know that these changes may cause some 
        inconvenience or be disruptive to the experience you're used 
        to, and I assure you we are making these changes out of 
        necessity to prioritize the safety of our associates and 
        customers.

He has further said:

        To State that theft has risen tenfold in the last five years 
        would not be an understatement. It has increased exponentially. 
        The last thing I want to do is close stores, but I've got to be 
        able to run them safely and profitably.

    That's exactly what's happening. These retailers are 
closing stores, costing our communities' jobs, and reducing 
Americans' access to basic commodities.
    Retailers are forced to raise their costs or close stores. 
That's particularly true in communities that can least afford 
higher price of goods or scarcity of opportunity to get those 
goods. It is allowed by the Americans who pay the price, not 
the criminals.
    Walmart decided to shut down 17 of its stores after CEO 
Doug McMillon warned that theft was the highest it's ever been 
around the country, including closing half of its Chicago 
stores where thefts are up 25 percent, according to the Chicago 
Police Department, while robberies are up 11 percent.
    Walmart has also permanently closed stores due to retail 
theft in South Bend, Indiana; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Honolulu, 
Hawaii; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Washington, DC; and Atlanta, 
Georgia.
    Target has seen $400 million in lost profits in 2022 due to 
organized gangs of shoplifters and has permanently closed 
stores in College Park, Maryland; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
    Walgreens has closed five locations in crime-ridden San 
Francisco and others in Chicago, Houston, and Orlando.
    Macy's a three-year plan to close 125 stores, citing 
increases in retail crime which has resulted in drops in 
profits.
    Best Buy is closing 20 stores a year for the same reason.
    Bed Bath & Beyond has identified 416 of its 1,500 stores 
for closure.
    Unfortunately, some retailers and prosecutors are more 
interested in protecting criminals than they are protecting 
their own employees. It is clear that some prosecutors and bail 
reform laws in Democrat-run cities and States are emboldening 
criminals and fueling a rise in organized retail crime. We've 
even heard it from our own witnesses during the violent crime 
field hearing we had in Manhattan earlier this year. Democrat 
city Councilman Robert Holden provided a grim description of 
everyday life in Manhattan when he said:

        Mentally ill homeless people verbally and physically attack 
        people randomly in the streets and in the subway. Pharmacies 
        lock up their products. The police officers also feel pressure 
        to undercharge perps they arrest. This is a daily reality in 
        New York.

    Criminals know they can avoid prosecution and incarceration 
if they stay below the felony threshold. In jurisdictions with 
rogue prosecutors who do not prosecute misdemeanor theft, 
criminals can steal just below the threshold and avoid 
prosecution altogether.
    This has been a problem in California especially, where 
many jurisdictions have rogue prosecutors. In 2014, voters in 
California passed a law which raised the felony threshold for 
theft from $400-$950 in the State.
    Lowering felony thresholds would not be needed if 
prosecutors actually prosecuted misdemeanors and lax bail 
reform laws did not let criminals go free. Broken window 
policing does work. Instead, we are seeing lax and, in some 
cases, nonexistent prosecution grow a new generation of 
criminals.
    The rise in organized retail crime in California comes as 
the California legislature is advancing a bill that would 
prevent retail staff from even stopping thieves from stealing 
inside stores. The legislation has passed the State Senate and 
is pending in the State Assembly. California Retailers 
Association panned the legislation as an invitation for 
criminals to come in and steal. Not weeks after the tragic 
death of Blake Mohs did the California State Senate pass this 
disgraceful legislation. Employees cannot intervene in crimes, 
and criminals can steal up to $900 in goods with impunity.
    So, why would you open a store in California? Well, you 
wouldn't. That's why so many retailers have left these 
Democrat-run cities. Thankfully, some States are actually 
stepping up to the plate to combat these violent criminal 
enterprises.
    The State of Kansas signed into law Senate Bill 174. Among 
other provisions, the law authorizes the Kansas Attorney 
General's office to be the primary prosecutor in the State for 
crimes such as ORC that occur in two or more counties. More 
than 30 States have actually passed anti-ORC law.
    While I assert that this is largely a State and local 
issue, it is important for us to understand that these ORC 
cartels are crossing State lines. Federal laws that can be used 
in prosecution of these include 18 U.S.C. 2314, interstate 
transfer of stolen property; 18 U.S.C. 96, RICO; and 18 U.S.C. 
1956.
    I'm glad we have States that understand the growing threat 
of organized retail crime in their communities and are willing 
to hold these criminals accountable. It's time we fight back 
against organized retail crime. It has to be stopped. Criminals 
must be penalized, and prosecutors need to be held responsible 
for failing to protect their communities from this violent 
crime. We must restore law and order to our communities and 
make America safe again.
    I'm going to submit two letters for the record: (1) From 
the National Retail Federation dated June 13, 2023, talking 
about the rise in organized retail crime, and (2) CHEP, which 
is CHEP USA, in response to our notice of this hearing. They 
will be admitted without objection.
    So, ordered.
    Our Ranking Member is not here. We will save time for her 
to speak when she gets in. I don't see either the Ranking 
Member or the Chair of the Full Committee, so we will go--I'm 
going to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell.
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for inviting Ms. 
Mohs of Newark, California, who lost her son, Blake, eight 
weeks ago today. Ms. Mohs will tell Blake's story momentarily. 
I just want to express to Ms. Mohs on behalf of the 14th 
Congressional District and my family our deepest sympathies for 
the loss of Blake, such an extraordinary young man who was to 
be engaged--or who was to be married this summer who we lost at 
26 years old, an Eagle Scout which we know is one of the most 
elite clubs anyone can be a part of, somebody who anyone who 
knew him, he lit up their world.
    My promise to you as the representative of Pleasanton, 
California, where his murder took place is to be an advocate 
for justice, not only for Blake and to make sure that justice 
is served in this case, but that we do address retail crime in 
this country.
    I have worked with our FBI field office for many years 
about trying to lend more Federal resources to local law 
enforcement so that they can crack down on retail crime.
    I will also say personally, my father was not only a police 
officer but when he retired a loss prevention agent. I know 
what loss prevention agents like Blake encounter every day.
    So, again, just on behalf of my office, thank you for 
coming here. I know it's not easy. We look forward to hearing 
you tell Blake's story and make sure that justice is served.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell. Thank you for being 
here with us today.
    Again, Ms. Mohs, thank you. We appreciate it so much.
    So, I'm going to begin now by introducing our witnesses, 
all who were gracious enough to come and testify before this 
Committee on this important issue.
    The first we have is the Hon. Kris Kobach. Mr. Kobach is 
the Attorney General of Kansas and previously served as the 
Secretary of State of Kansas. He graduated from Harvard 
University, received his J.D. from Yale University, and 
received a Ph.D. from the University of Oxford. He clerked on 
the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, taught Constitutional law 
at the University of Missouri Kansas City School of Law, and 
served in the Department of Justice during the George W. Bush 
Administration. Thank you for being here, Mr. Kobach.
    Ms. Lorie Mohs is the mother of Blake Mohs. Blake was shot 
and killed during an attempted shoplifting at a Home Depot just 
a few weeks ago. Her son was a loss prevention employee and was 
just 26 years old. The alleged murderer had prior convictions 
for theft and fled the scene with her boyfriend and toddler. 
She was arrested later by a police officer. I appreciate Mr. 
Swalwell's kind introduction of you as well.
    The Hon. John J. Flynn is currently serving his second term 
as the District Attorney of Erie County, New York. Prior to his 
election he worked in private practice as a personal injury 
attorney and was a lecturer at SUNY Buffalo State. Mr. Flynn 
served in the Navy during the Gulf War and later in the Judge 
Advocate General's Corps after receiving his law degree. He 
currently serves as the president of the National District 
Attorneys Association.
    Welcome and thank you for your service, Mr. Flynn.
    The Hon. John Milhiser. Mr. Milhiser is the former U.S. 
Attorney for the Central District of Illinois. He previously 
served as the State's Attorney for Sangamon County--did I say 
that right--Sangamon County, Illinois. Since leaving the U.S. 
Attorney's office, he has founded the American Center for Law 
and Public Safety with other former U.S. attorneys. The center 
is a bipartisan organization dedicated to safeguarding the rule 
of law, civil liberties, and the Constitution through 
education, research, recruitment, and advocacy.
    We thank you, Mr. Milhiser, for being here.
    We'll now begin by asking you to please stand, and I will 
swear you in. If you each would please stand and raise your 
right hand.
    Do each of you swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury, 
that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to 
the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help 
you God?
    Let the record reflect that each of the witnesses has 
answered in the affirmative. Please be seated. Thank you.
    Please know we have received your written statements. 
They're all going to be made part of the record in their 
entirety. Therefore, we ask that you summarize your testimony 
in five minutes. I don't know if we have a yellow and a light 
to let you know when you're getting to the last minute or so, 
but I will probably start tapping here when you have about 10 
or 15 seconds to go so you know it's time to wrap up.
    Thank you each, and we'll start with you, Mr. Kobach.

               STATEMENT OF THE HON. KRIS KOBACH

    Mr. Kobach. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Members of 
the Committee, for--
    Mr. Biggs. Is your mic on?
    Mr. Kobach. Can you hear me? Oh, there we go.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Members of the 
Committee, for addressing this important topic.
    The amount of retail crime in Kansas is surprisingly high. 
We are among the top ten States hit by--in terms of dollars 
stolen in organized retail crime, but we're not in the top ten 
in violent crimes or gun crimes or many other categories of 
crimes, and the reason most law enforcement give for that is 
the I-70 corridor. Kansas and Missouri are both in the top ten. 
The other States in the top ten are ones you would expect, like 
California, Texas, Florida, and some of the very large, more 
populous States.
    The I-70 corridor is a pipeline not only for organized 
retail crime, but also for drugs. There's often a great deal of 
overlap between drugs and organized retail crime because the 
drug addicted are often recruited as boosters by the people who 
run the organized crime rings or networks.
    I thought I would give you some typical cases from Kansas 
which I believe are typical not only of our State, but of most 
States where organized retail crime is an issue, which is 
increasingly all the States.
    Recently, we saw the guilty plea of Frank Santa Maria in 
March 2023 in Kansas City. He owned a pawn shop which was the 
hub of the organized crime network. Pawn shops are very 
frequently the hub of these networks. He had four boosters who 
stole merchandise for him. He then sold the stolen products on 
eBay pages. More than $100,000 in stolen products were sold for 
a total of over $3 million. Just to give you a glimpse of what 
his network looked like, they stole from Home Depot, Lowe's, 
Walmart, Target, Walgreens, and CVS. The stolen products 
included ink cartridges, Spypoint cameras, Nikon rangefinders, 
electric fence systems, Rogaine products, Nicorette products, 
over-the-counter supplements, and Crest Whitestrips. Because 
the crimes were sold in both Kansas and Missouri creating 
interstate nexus and because the amount stolen was over 
$250,000, which is usually the threshold these days for Federal 
prosecutors, Federal prosecutors were interested, and the case 
was brought in Federal court.
    Another case in the Kansas City area, Dennis Russell pled 
guilty in a similar scheme. Again, a pawn shop was the hub of 
the organized retail crime network, 14,000 stolen items, for a 
total of over $740,000 and sold on eBay. The types of stolen 
items were a little bit different: Robot vacuum cleaners, 
television streaming devices, and, yes, textbooks. Similar 
network of a group of four to eight boosters centered on a pawn 
shop.
    In another case, in a different case in Kansas, this one 
without the interstate nexus, again, the retail crime 
organization focused on a pawn shop stealing over $200,000 from 
predominantly box stores. It's a fairly common pattern. So, to 
summarize some of the commonalities, you typically see box 
stores being hit two to three times a week. The fence at the 
center is usually--or in Kansas is usually a pawn shop, but 
oftentimes it's just a warehouse that's used to move the goods. 
Almost all the products are sold online.
    The factors in the legal system that are exacerbating this 
problem:

    (1)  Many of the cases do not get prosecuted. A huge number 
do not get prosecuted due to the lack of prosecutorial capacity 
at the county level. Many DAs simply have too large a stack of 
crimes. Nonperson crimes like this get moved to the bottom of 
the stack and, consequently, don't get prosecuted.
    (2)  Compounding this is a lack of prosecutorial capacity, 
which one of the other witnesses may be able to address, at the 
Federal level. In our area they have a $250,000 threshold. If 
you can't show that 250 grand has been shown in your network of 
stores, then you're not going to get your case prosecuted.
    (3)  Investigative capacity is also limited. Police 
departments only have a limited number of detectives, and if 
you've got multiple stores getting hit multiple times each day, 
they don't have the capacity to investigate all of them.
    (4)  On top of that, there's a problem in the courts. Many 
courts are setting bail too low for the criminals, much lower 
than they did in the past. On top of that, bail bondsmen today 
are willing to accept a much lower percentage of the bail 
amount than they were, say, 20 or 30 years ago. As a 
combination of those two things, it's highly likely that the 
booster will be back out on the street before the end of the 
day.

    Policy recommendations: In Kansas, as the Chair mentioned, 
we try to bring State prosecution to bear where more than one 
county is involved in a course of criminal conduct. I think the 
Federal legislation before this Committee is a very good step. 
I would also encourage, to the extent it's possible, U.S. 
Attorney prosecutors to lower that threshold from $250,000.
    I just want to summarize by saying we've talked about the 
economic consequences, but there's a bigger consequence, and 
that's the degradation of the rule of law.
    I just want to end with a quick story. I went into a 
Walgreens recently and talked to a clerk, and her store is hit 
two to three times a day. I asked her what she does. She said,

         . . . well, she finally decided to start following the 
        boosters through the store, heckling them and harassing them 
        against store policy.

I asked her why she did that. She said because she,

         . . . can't stand what's happening to the reputation of her 
        store and her neighborhood. She is fighting to preserve our 
        culture where the rule of law is intact.

    [The prepared statement of the Hon. Kobach follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Kobach.
    Ms. Mohs, we're ready for you and your five minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF LORIE MOHS

    Ms. Mohs. Good afternoon.
    Thank you for taking the time to hear my story.
    My name is Lorie Mohs, and my son's name is Blake Mohs. He 
was born on January 14, 1997, and was murdered on April 18, 
2023, at the young age of 26. In my son's short 26 years, he 
was a chef, an Eagle Scout, a church youth leader, a Newark 
Police Department cadet, but most of all, he was a friend, a 
nephew, a cousin, a grandson, a brother, and my son.
    Blake lived a life of community service dedicated to 
fighting for the underdog and a love for his family. He lived 
life to the fullest every day, laughing often and giving the 
best hugs imaginable.
    In early 2022, Blake became an asset protection associate 
for Home Depot. He worked to gain additional experience before 
applying to the Newark Police Department. When I spoke with 
Blake on our every Wednesday calls, he would tell me about his 
training at Home Depot. He would explain that he was trained to 
locate shoplifters within the store, document their actions, 
track shoplifters through the store, follow them outside and 
apprehend them. Then he would bring the shoplifters back into 
the store to complete a theft report, take photos, and then 
turn them over to law enforcement if required.
    When I asked my son about the risk of his new job at Home 
Depot and if he was provided any personal protective equipment, 
he quickly would tell me no. I would ask if he's been issued 
any bulletproof vests, pepper spray, or safety gear, and he 
would again tell me no.
    During many of my calls we would talk about the level of 
theft he experienced within Home Depot. He would tell me of the 
theft rings he would help gather evidence for local police 
departments and how excited he was to work with the officers.
    Blake would tell me about the many weapons he had pulled on 
him, including knives and guns, by shoplifters. When I asked 
about how he could manage to be safe, my son would tell me he 
could simply hide behind a post to avoid being shot or hurt.
    As a mom, my concerns began to grow at the lack of PPE that 
had been issued by Home Depot.
    All my concerns and fears were realized by one phone call. 
On Tuesday, April 18th, the voice over the phone declared that 
my son had been shot. I quickly called Eden Medical where he 
had been transported to get an update. I spoke with the 
emergency room doctor, and he simply told me to come as quickly 
as I could. I asked if I needed to gather my family, and he 
said yes. At that moment I knew my son was dead.
    On April 18, 2023, eight weeks ago today, at 2:15 Pacific 
Standard Time, my son was shot at close range by a shoplifter 
while working as an asset protection officer at Home Depot in 
Pleasanton, California. My son and his teammate had been called 
into action as Benicia Knapps attempted to steal a charger from 
the tool department. My son encountered Knapps at the back of 
the store where her getaway driver, David Guillory, was 
awaiting to flee the scene. According to witness statements, my 
son took the item from Knapps and walked back into the store.
    Knapps followed my son back into the store. When he turned 
around, she pulled out her gun from her purse and shot my son, 
in the heart of all places. He fell face forward to the ground 
and dropped the item. Knapps picked up the item from his dead 
body and fled in the getaway car.
    In the days to come, I would learn that Guillory, the 
getaway driver, was a felon. He had served jail time for home 
invasion robbery but was let go during COVID. We learned that 
Knapps, my son's executor, had been in and out of trouble since 
1995. She was in violation of probation since 2012 but was 
still roaming the streets free. She also had a concealed permit 
that had been revoked, along with her security guard card.
    For both Guillory and Knapps, the judicial system failed to 
rehabilitate them properly. The system failed to keep them 
accountable for their private actions, leading to the 
escalation in criminal behavior, leading to the shooting death 
of my son.
    The system failed because instead of rehabilitating 
criminals, we release them early, we do not execute proper 
charges in court, and we fail to seek probation violators.
    The system failed my son. He was asked to do a job with a 
small wage and a high risk leading to his death. Home Depot 
failed to provide proper protective equipment to secure his 
safety and carry out his required duties. OSHA failed to make 
safety a priority for asset protection officers and mandate 
bulletproof vests.
    The system failed Blake's future self. He will never be 
married. He will never have a child. He will never grow old. We 
will never have another family photo. We will never hear his 
laughter or feel his hugs. I will never get to say, I love you 
and I'm proud of you, and I'll never hear it back.
    What we do have is 26 wonderful years of memories that were 
cut too short. The failing of so many could have prevented his 
death. Our hope is that our story helps this Committee 
understand the importance and the urgency for change.
    Thank you for your time and for listening to our story.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Mohs follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you very much and thank you for sharing 
that very poignant story.
    Thank you.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Flynn.

                    STATEMENT OF JOHN FLYNN

    Mr. Flynn. Thank you, sir.
    Good afternoon, Chair Biggs, and Members of the 
Subcommittee. As was alluded to, my name is John Flynn, and I'm 
the elected District Attorney of Erie County, New York. That is 
the home of Buffalo, New York. I am also the elected--the 
President of the National District Attorneys, Association 
better known as NDAA. NDAA recognizes the vital role that 
prosecutors play in the safety of local communities, including 
addressing the serious challenge of retail theft and organized 
retail crime. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today.
    Let me begin with a couple of statistics that give you the 
scope of the problem. According to a report by the Retail 
Industry Leaders Association on the impact of all forms of 
retail theft, almost $70 billion worth of products was stolen 
from U.S. retailers in 2019. Connected to that is the cost of 
Federal and State governments in lost personal and business tax 
revenues estimated at about $15 billion.
    These statistics are comprised of large and small, urban 
and rural communities. Organized retail crime and retail theft 
are equal opportunity destroyers of communities and must be 
addressed to ensure healthy and vibrant communities.
    We have to differentiate, though, between the two and break 
down the types of defendants as seen by law enforcement 
prosecutors.
    In my county of almost one million people, we see mainly 
three categories:

    (1)  First are the organized crime syndicates, the Russian 
crime syndicates, the Mafia, the Mexican cartels, other highly 
sophisticated gangs, and other transnational rings.
    (2)  The second group I would characterize as loosely 
affiliated group affiliations, individuals, groups of four to 
five individuals that get together and steal merchandise.
    (3)  The third category I would call just the random 
individuals, those who commit theft for personal use. This 
category often involves a single individual who is suffering 
from a substance abuse disorder, mental illness, is homeless, 
or has economic challenges.

    Overall, we are seeing the vast majority of activity in my 
community and when I talk to most local prosecutors in the 
second and third categories of defendants. However, it's 
important to note that the first group of defendants very much 
exist.
    Both retail theft and organized retail crime have a 
negative impact on communities. Unfortunately, it sometimes 
involves violence as well as damage to store fronts and other 
property. That's on top of the economic loss, which then adds 
to the burden faced by consumers.
    I think we can all agree that this has to change. The 
approach must be targeted and must be tailored as opposed to a 
one-size-fits-all strategy.
    We must address the issue holistically. For those 
individuals who steal for their own personal use, they may need 
services like alcohol, drug, or mental health treatment. For 
more sophisticated operations, particularly involving repeat 
offenders, a more law-and-order approach is needed, such as 
incarceration. Each category of defendant and even each 
individual within the categories must be treated differently, 
depending on the circumstances and facts of each case.
    It is also important to understand who is generally 
handling these cases and these categories as defendants.
    The first category of organized criminal groups is handled 
primarily by the Federal government, through agencies like the 
Homeland Security Investigations and U.S. attorneys' offices 
acting through the Department of Justice. This is particularly 
important when criminals cross State lines or even 
international borders.
    The second and third category of defendants are local in 
nature, and I believe should be handled by local law 
enforcement and my district attorney prosecution agencies. That 
requires law enforcement prosecutors to step up and acknowledge 
the serious nature of these crimes and their impact on 
communities.
    Just last week my office prosecuted a habitual offender for 
retail theft after being banned from several stores. He was 
given six years in prison, and this individual continued to 
steal even when picked up on an outstanding warrant. The bottom 
line is that shoplifting is not a victimless crime. We should 
not tolerate these thefts and should hold offenders accountable 
for their crimes.
    I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about these 
important and complex issues. NDAA stands ready to assist as we 
look for ways to tackle organized retail crime and retail theft 
that threatens the vibrancy of our communities.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Flynn follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Flynn.
    Mr. Milhiser.

              STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN MILHISER

    Mr. Milhiser. Thank you, Chair Biggs and the distinguished 
Members of the Committee. Thank you very much for the 
opportunity to address you on this important topic, the rise in 
organized retail crime and the corresponding threat to public 
safety.
    I spent the majority of my career as a State and Federal 
prosecutor working on these very issues and the main overriding 
issue of public safety and safe communities.
    My name is John Milhiser. From 2018-2021, I served as the 
United States Attorney for the Central District of Illinois. 
Prior to that, from 2010-2018, I served as the State's Attorney 
or local DA for Sangamon County, Illinois, of which I was a 
member of the NDAA, which DA Flynn is the president of. In both 
positions my goal was the same, to work each day to make my 
community safer. That should be the goal of every prosecutor in 
this country, and I'm not sure it is.
    At the outset, I recognize that this is a congressional 
hearing. As a former U.S. Attorney, I'm fully aware that 
Federal prosecutors and Federal law enforcement agencies can be 
important partners in investigating and prosecuting organized 
crime. However, the bulk of the heavy lifting in prosecuting 
crime in the United States is performed by State and local 
prosecutors.
    The individuals on the frontline tasked with keeping our 
communities safe are the 2,500 or so elected and appointed DAs 
and their offices around the country at the State and local 
level. These prosecutors have a tremendous amount of 
discretion. Unfortunately, as we have seen in some 
jurisdictions, when they come in and fail to do their job, 
crime increases. It's a difficult job, but an incredibly 
important one.
    To have safe communities, we need to ensure that we have 
good prosecutors in every jurisdiction in the country, and we 
need to ensure that these prosecutors have access to the 
resources necessary to successfully prosecute crimes which are 
becoming increasingly more sophisticated.
    Organized retail crime has both national and international 
components. It's become a serious problem for nationwide 
retailers and can be devastating to small local businesses. 
Organized retail crime is distinguishable from ordinary retail 
theft given its large scale and its focus on converting stolen 
goods to cash, through resale or to gift cards through store 
returns.
    Theft can occur throughout the supply chain. Organized 
retail crime drives up costs, requires diversion of already 
scarce resources, results in lost tax revenue, and, 
significantly, puts individuals at risk.
    To successfully combat this worsening trend, we need tools 
for law enforcement and local prosecutors, and we need local 
prosecutors committed to preserving the rule of law and 
protecting the public.
    During my time as U.S. Attorney and State's Attorney, I 
participated in a number of topic specific task forces which 
included State and Federal prosecutors, law enforcement, and 
relevant government and private agencies. Coordination is key 
in dismantling criminal enterprises, whether it be human 
trafficking, illegal drugs, or organized retail theft.
    For example, while most crimes are prosecuted locally, the 
Federal government is uniquely positioned to investigate online 
multijurisdictional resale of stolen goods.
    Additionally, there's legislation being considered here on 
Capitol Hill that could help, including broadening the scope of 
cases in which the U.S. Attorneys' offices can be involved and 
Federal charges can be filed and utilizing Federal asset 
forfeiture to take away the proceeds from organized retail 
crime and to disrupt operations.
    When considering the increase in organized retail theft, 
one must examine the rise in crime in general and how to 
address the overall problem. We need Federal authorities to 
provide resources, expertise, and partnerships. At the end of 
the day, we need local prosecutors to step up and do their 
jobs.
    Earlier this year, I along with several other former U.S. 
Attorneys from around the country formed a bipartisan 
organization to address this very issue called the American 
Center for Law and Public Safety. We identified five core 
principles needed by responsible prosecutors around the country 
to be effective. These are:

    (1)  Prioritize public safety. You'd think that would be a 
given, but it's not for some prosecutors when they come in.
    (2)  Respect for the rule of law. Some prosecutors come in, 
and they say, you know what? I don't care what the legislature 
says. I'm going to go ahead and not follow what they say, and 
I'm going to not charge certain offenses that are on the books.
    (3)  Support victims' rights. They're often forgotten in 
the equation, but they're the victims of these offenses.
    (4)  Collaboration with law enforcement. They are part of 
the answer, not the problem.
    (5)  Support post-sentence reentry, which good prosecutors, 
responsible prosecutors know that because these folks that are 
locked up, 99 percent of them are going to get out. If they go 
right back to that same environment that they were in, we're 
silly to think they're going to change their behavior. So, we 
need to put them in the best position to no re-offend.

    Being a modern-day prosecutor is a difficult job dealing 
with limited resources, but it's a vitally important job, and a 
prosecutor's most important duty is to protect the public. 
Working together, we can achieve the goal of safe communities 
and allow individuals and businesses to prosper.
    Thank you for this opportunity and for raising awareness on 
this issue. I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of the Hon. Milhiser follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Milhiser.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin for his 
five minutes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Kobach, do you think the lawlessness we're seeing in 
our country--and we are seeing it--over the last number of 
years and the defund the police movement, this lack of respect 
for law enforcement, do you think this has contributed to what 
we're seeing here?
    Mr. Kobach. I do, sir. At the end of my comments, I briefly 
noted on this. There's a cultural element here too, and it's a 
lack of respect for the rule of law, and it gets to a point in 
certain areas where people feel like shoplifting is accepted or 
at least tolerated or nothing is being done about it. There's 
also a subculture among the boosters and among people who may 
not be part of organized retail crime that works but, 
nevertheless, shoplift for personal reasons, and there are 
committing these on Reddit where they routinely talk about 
sharing strategies for crime, for different stores and how to 
hit different types of stores differently, and what the 
policies are.
    So, there is definitely a shift in the culture of certain 
communities geographically where the organized retail crime is 
hitting, and I think that's a problem. It's more than just 
stores being hit and a lack of prosecutors. It's being accepted 
in some quarters. So, I think by taking action we also restore 
the rule of law in a sort of cultural sense both for the 
communities and for the entire country.
    Mr. Tiffany. Ms. Mohs, you commented about there and 
perhaps should be some additional safety requirements put in 
place for people like your son who's in a job like he's doing.
    Do you live in California? We're certainly seeing what is 
happening in California where the legislature is basically 
endorsing crime with some of their public policy actions.
    Do you agree with the characterization that Mr. Kobach just 
laid out?
    Ms. Mohs. I only involve myself in this instance with my 
son's passing, unfortunately. So, defunding police and things 
of that, those are not my expertise. I just know how my son 
passed and what I'm fighting for in my own community.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for that.
    So, I would share a story. Mr. Milhiser, you laid it out 
quite well there. I have spoken repeatedly in this Committee in 
regard to the District Attorney down in Milwaukee County who 
has accepted this lawlessness in his county. There's a story 
here that there's a serial retail thief who has stolen 
thousands of power tools 14 times from various Home Depot 
stores throughout the area since August 2021, yet the Milwaukee 
County District Attorney has not charged any of those 
instances.
    Mr. Chair, I would like to enter this into the record, a 
story from Wisconsin Right Now, serial retail theft suspect, 14 
cases, failure to charge.
    Mr. Biggs. Without objection.
    Mr. Tiffany. If you will remember, it's that same district 
attorney that let Darrell Brooks out on a $1,000 bail. He was a 
serial recidivist, including violent crimes. He was the 
perpetrator of the Waukesha Christmas Day Parade from--what was 
that--a year and a half ago, $300,000 bail. Six people were 
killed when he drove his automobile through that parade. I 
believe there were about 60 people that were injured.
    This is the kind of thing that's happening around America 
where we have these prosecutors that are doing things like 
that.
    I think we would be remiss, Mr. Chair, because I think you 
laid it out quite well in your opening statement, about the 
lawlessness that pervades America. We see it down on the 
southern border, which we've heard about repeatedly in this 
Committee, where we have a Secretary of the Department of 
Homeland Security that denies that there's a problem on the 
border, even in the face of the head of Border Patrol saying 
differently, that the border is not secure.
    We're seeing this lawlessness generally across America 
and--but I think I would be remiss, Mr. Chair, in not pointing 
out that some of the woke corporations that are coming to us 
now and saying, ``Hey, we need relief,'' we don't disagree with 
you, but you need to not fund these activities that are going 
on and these organizations that are perpetrating some of this 
crime. I think it's very important that you step up. Also, I 
would just say to local citizens around America, I know you 
want to vote for Democrats. That's what you believe in. When 
you're in the big cities of America--
    Mr. Biggs. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Tiffany. --it is why you're seeing the lawlessness. You 
need to vote for people who are going to be tough on crime.
    Mr. Biggs. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlelady, Ms. Dean.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you to all our testifiers for being here today. I'm 
Madeleine Dean. I represent suburban Philadelphia, Montgomery, 
and Bucks Counties.
    So, Ms. Mohs, to you, thank you for your courage to come 
here today, to tell your story, to tell Blake's story. It is 
heartbreaking. It's crushing to hear something like that, which 
should have been abundantly preventable, happen to your 
beautiful 26-year old young man. From what I understand, a 
young man who wanted to go into law enforcement himself, was 
proud of what he was engaging in.
    It comes at a time that strangely on the floor right now is 
being argued about making legal a stabilizer brace to make 
weapons more lethal at a time in our country when we're 
struggling with gun violence. It comes at a time when we can't 
get the majority party to do anything around gun violence. 
Thoughts and prayers are all they do.
    I want you to know that there are many of us here who are 
fighting to make sure that the kind of person who shot your son 
does not possess a weapon. We have laws. She was a prohibited 
purchaser. We have to make sure we do better by our children.
    So, I wanted to give you a minute to tell us a little bit 
more about your son and just to take back to your family our 
abiding love and sympathy for your unimaginable loss.
    Tell us a little bit more about your son.
    Ms. Mohs. Thank you so much. I appreciate your words there. 
They are beyond kind.
    When I talk personally about my son versus in a very 
eloquent way, the things that I think about are the moments 
we're really going to miss our traditions without him, our 
Thanksgiving prayer that my father hosts that will not host 
this year that prayer, because to say the ones we've lost, he 
now adds to the chain of my grandmother and my aunt, my son is 
there.
    So, my son lived the biggest life possible, and everybody 
he touched is better. I'm better for being his mom, and his 
brother is better for being his brother.
    Ms. Dean. There's a blessing in that. We are very, very 
sorry. You just have my commitment that we will do everything 
possible to get our arms around this incredible problem, retail 
theft, obviously, very serious, but violent crime and gun 
deaths in this country, when we lose 45,000-47,000 people to 
gun violence every single year in this country, and we have a 
party that we tried to have a hearing last week, and no one on 
the other side of the aisle would give us a hearing room so 
that victims like you, survivors like you could speak. We had 
to go over to the Senate side. So very interested in retail 
crime, not very interested in saving lives.
    Mr. Swalwell. Does the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Dean. I will yield.
    Mr. Swalwell. Ms. Mohs, I also want to make sure we 
recognize, your father is a retired police officer, deputy 
sheriff--is that right--and then became a police chief?
    Ms. Mohs. Yes. My father, Roy Froom, is seated behind me, 
and he is my strength today. He is a retired sheriff, and he 
also went to the FBI Academy here in D.C. and has lived a 
wonderful life and was a wonderful grandfather.
    Mr. Swalwell. Ms. Mohs, can you also tell us--you have this 
public forum, a forum that you never wanted, but to the 
prosecutors in this case--I hope they're listening to this--
what do you want to see as an outcome?
    Ms. Mohs. We should be charging this case appropriately, 
and we should be charging the case based on facts and not on 
personal opinion or personal agenda. We should be using the 
judicial system as it should be used, not for personal gain, 
but for safety of our communities and our children. By not 
charging the proper gun, which is discharge in death, Benicia 
Knapps will serve much less of a sentence, and the DA's office 
is refusing to do so.
    It's not fair that we have to be victimized again to fight 
for our child and to fight for justice and the right things to 
happen in court.
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Ms. Mohs.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. The time has expired.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Moore.
    Mr. Moore. Ms. Mohs, thank you for being here today and 
sharing your family's personal story.
    Mr. Kobach, you said something a while ago that when you 
said a lower bail percentage, you mentioned that in your 
testimony, tell me, I've heard of being soft on crime. How is 
that impacting people getting out and why lower bail 
percentage?
    Mr. Kobach. Well, if the bail bondsman is accepting a much 
smaller percentage, say, ten percent or five percent of the 
bail amount and the bail amount itself is very small, then you 
may be--these boosters may be able to get out on bail for only 
$1,000 or even less. So, that results in them being detained 
for a very short period of time and that they can go right back 
to doing what they were doing.
    Mr. Moore. So, in a situation like that, they would be back 
in a Lowe's or a Home Depot rather quickly once that decision 
is made to turn them back out on the street?
    Mr. Kobach. Right.
    Mr. Moore. Is that because they're soft on crime? The bail 
bondsman knows, in fact, that there's probably not going to a 
prosecution and they're not going to jump?
    Mr. Kobach. No. I would say that this is occurring in 
jurisdictions in my State that are certainly not soft on crime, 
and the prosecutors are not soft on crime at all. It's just 
that the judges--there's been a trend over the years in many 
States where there's no political dynamic going on, but the 
bail amounts are being set lower.
    That's something that legislatively the legislators in 
Kansas may need to address. It's one of many factors that is 
causing a lack of prosecution or, in this case, a lack of 
detention.
    Mr. Moore. Gotcha.
    How is your office working to toughen Federal and State 
laws to stop these gangs from stealing in different 
jurisdictions and then stealing just enough to stay below that 
felony threshold? What are you doing in that respect?
    Mr. Kobach. So, they typically--in Kansas, the felony 
threshold is at $1,000, so you will typically see them stealing 
900 or so in any given criminal event. The prosecutors note 
this, and as I said before, they've got a stack of cases, and 
if there's no person felony, it's only non-person felonies, 
they tend to fall to the bottom of the stack. I'm not blaming 
local prosecutors. They have a shortage of criminal prosecuting 
attorneys across the country.
    In my office, at the State Attorney General's office, we're 
having difficulty hiring to fill all the vacancies we have. We 
do have capacity, and that's why in our State legislation that 
was recently adopted, we have primary prosecution authority if 
the case involves more than one county, which typically is the 
case in these organized retail crime networks. So, we'll be 
bringing State resources to bear when that law takes effect on 
July 1st.
    Mr. Moore. OK. Thank you, thank you.
    Mr. Milhiser, what's happening in communities where the 
prosecutors fail to apply the laws? What are you seeing? You 
mentioned that in your testimony about you've got certain 
prosecutors that have just decided not to apply the law on the 
book. Whether we change the law or not, if it's not applied, 
it's very ineffective for us to pass law after law, whether it 
be gun laws or drug laws, or whatever the case, if, in fact, 
they're not prosecuted.
    What's going on in those communities, Mr. Milhiser?
    Mr. Milhiser. What we've seen--and it's pretty uniform 
around the country--in jurisdictions where a--I call them so-
called progressive prosecutors, because a progressive 
prosecutor is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It could be a 
modern prosecutor that looks at diversion courts and specialty 
courts, all things I put in when I was the elected DA.
    Those are fine, but as prosecutors, when they come in with 
some other agenda, sort of these politically driven extremists 
that have done nothing but degrade the quality of the criminal 
justice system around the country, in the communities that they 
serve, and I think what you see is crime goes up. Businesses 
leave. We see what's happening in San Francisco. Now, they 
recalled that DA last year.
    In St. Louis, that's another one with the Circuit Attorney 
Kim Gardner who recently a judge--before she resigned, a judge 
called her office a rudderless ship of chaos. Now, I've run a 
prosecutor's office. You don't want to have a judge call your 
office that. She not only had this political agenda, but she 
was inept and could not run an office.
    In Chicago the same thing with Kim Foxx, who was a 
progressive prosecutor, so-called progressive because, again, 
they decide, hey, I'm going to raise the thresholds, I'm not 
going to prosecute these cases. People come in, they don't file 
charges, they get right back out on the street. I think the 
Chicago Police Department called it catch and release.
    You see this in cities around the country when crimes are 
not prosecuted, and there's no accountability. Those criminals 
know it, and they're right back out to deadly consequences, 
deadly consequences, and it's seen all around the country.
    Mr. Moore. The word gets around pretty quick I understand 
in communities where we're not prosecuting crimes, whether it's 
organized or just community. Word travels pretty quickly in 
those communities, and crime just kind of runs rampant. Is that 
what we're seeing?
    Mr. Milhiser. Very much so. So, let's take Illinois, for 
example. So, you have Cook County where you have Kim Foxx was 
the State's Attorney, did a poor job of prosecuting cases. Will 
County, Jim Glasgow, Democrat, good prosecutor. DuPage County, 
Republican, Bob Berlin, good prosecutor. So, those border Cook 
County, so those defendants know it. They know it.
    There was a carjacking last year. Thankfully, that 
carjacking person was arrested in Will County where he was 
prosecuted and locked up. If that same case had happened in 
Cook County, the person would have been released the next day. 
So, it's those jurisdictions that are potentially dangerous.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Milhiser. I'm out of time.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
    The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, the distinguished 
lady from Houston, Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you for your courtesies and let me 
thank Congressman Dean for her questioning, certainly to 
Congressman Swalwell, and to his constituent for his 
leadership, persistent leadership in assuring justice for you. 
I'm very appreciative of his presence here and as well his 
assistance in covering the Ranking Member capacity. So, thank 
you so very much for your leadership on this issue.
    I think we all want justice for anyone that has been in the 
midst of a heinous crime that has generated in the loss of 
life. We want to come here today and fully appreciate what 
we're dealing with.
    So, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding 
to me for my opening statement, which I will try to summarize 
and come back again for questions. We're here today to deal 
with the issue of retail crime.
    Recently retail and industry advocates have sounded the 
alarm expressing concern that organized retail crime has become 
a significant threat to the retail industry. This criminal 
activity involves groups of individuals who operate in a well-
coordinated manner to steal goods or defraud retailers and 
resell stolen items for economic gain.
    Mr. Biggs, Congressman Biggs, just last week I spoke to the 
mobile phone store owners. Most of those stores are ground 
floor--all of them are ground floor. They're in shopping 
centers, strip centers, et cetera. There's nothing like--I 
guess the terminology is break the glass and grab something 
else--smash and grab. Thank you so very much. They were 
speaking of that, and I went to listen to them because that is 
heinous, it is an economic crime but, it's also violence and 
threatens the potential of people's lives. Smash and grab, 
we're not here to support that.
    It is a multibillion-dollar enterprise, and I want them to 
know that I'm listening to those constituents in Houston who 
have businesses that are subject to that kind of crime that 
evolves and adapts to the latest technological trends within 
the retail industry and among consumers and results in higher 
prices at the cash register. Social media and news reports are 
replete with videos of flash mobs rushing into stores and 
overwhelming, sometimes assaulting, employees and leaving with 
bags and armfuls of goods, mostly these retail items, from 
clothing to jewelry to phones, et cetera.
    While these anecdotal counts are allowing the Federal role 
in deterring these crimes, it should be made clear, because it 
seems unclear, the Federal government has long recognized the 
problem and taken steps to combat organized retail crime and 
protect store employees, customers, and communities. 
Cooperation between retailers and Federal and State law 
enforcement agencies through task forces and partnerships has 
been crucial in addressing these crimes and promoting public 
safety.
    For example, the FBI's Cleveland Field Office partnered 
with the Retail Industry Leaders Association and State and 
local law enforcement agencies to share expertise, 
intelligence, and resources to identify, investigate, and 
prosecute those who perpetrate these crimes.
    Over the past three years, Homeland Security Investigation 
has tripled the number of cases it is investigating. Last year, 
HSI Houston and the Houston Police Department, who I applaud, 
arrested eight people and seized nearly 2,000 stolen electronic 
devices, which is very likely the device of choice, valued at 
approximately $1.8 million as part of a joint investigation 
into a $65 million transnational organized retail crime 
operation suspected of smuggling stolen cell phones and other 
electronic overseas and laundering the proceeds.
    The FBI, the Secret Service, and the Department of Homeland 
Security have all increased their efforts to investigate and 
prosecute retail crime because it is a domestic national 
security threat, and it connects internationally.
    Even in spite of the efforts of law enforcement to address 
this issue, the issue of understanding the prevalence of 
organized retail crime persists, largely due to a lack of 
consistent and comprehensive data.
    If I support legislation, that would be one of the aspects 
of determining what is the level of this type of crime. Data 
gives us a pathway to solution. While various retailers, retail 
organizations, law enforcement track retail theft, there is no 
uniform definition of organized retail crime or a standardized 
method for tracking such crimes, which makes it difficult to 
ascertain the full scope of the problem and formulate a 
targeted response.
    Compound the inconsistency in data collection with 
retailers' reluctance to report the full extent of crimes 
committed in their stores, then lawmakers, such as ourselves, 
are left with little information that we can use to determine 
how Congress can help.
    If we can get sort of the relief from insurance rates going 
up or people not wanting to come to your store to these 
retailers so we can gather data, that might be a good step 
forward in getting the information we need.
    Moreover, the anonymous nature of the internet has made it 
easier for criminals supporting the activities and resale of 
their ill-gotten merchandise. Monitoring online activity can be 
complicated, and not all transactions can be traced, making it 
even harder to understand the prevalence of organized retail 
crime as it occurs.
    Last Congress we were able to pass the INFORM Consumers Act 
which takes effect this month. That's good news. That law will 
have more transparency to online transactions by requiring 
online marketplaces to collect, verify, and disclose certain 
information from high-volume sellers and provide consumers with 
means to report suspicious activities.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Despite there being no representative from 
the retailers present today, I hope our witnesses have been 
able to, because you've already been testifying, to help us 
determine whether there's more that the Federal government can 
do to combat organized retail crime, and certainly to prevent 
the hardship of this mother who has experienced a terrible 
crisis and devastating act in her life.
    I expect that they will be able to explain--or have been 
able to explain their vision for increased Federal involvement, 
and I hope Members have secured that information from them. 
While there are those who have advocated for Federal organized 
crime statute, many in law enforcement argue that existing 
tools are sufficient. We will keep looking at this to combat 
these crimes.
    When considering the creation of new Federal offenses, 
should be both thoughtful and careful, particularly if there 
are statutes already available to prosecute the conduct in 
question. Bearing that in mind, although Federal law does not 
explicitly criminalize retail theft, the transportation of 
stolen goods across State lines, the sale or receipt of stolen 
goods, money laundering, and conspiracy, all which are 
components of organized retail crime and are all currently 
prohibited by Federal law. Enforcement is certainly a key. 
Catching these bad guys and ladies is certainly important.
    Hopefully, today's hearing has been able to determine, and 
will continue to, what the impediments investigating and 
prosecuting organized retail crime are due, more to a lack of 
resources than a need for additional prosecutorial tools.
    So, I look forward to listening to the witnesses' answers 
so that we can be as effective as possible. Yes, when it comes 
to the dastardly act of someone losing their life, that they 
never had that happen to a mother or family again. We know 
there is petty shoplifting, but we know that there is this 
thing called violent crime that hurts everyone.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
    With that, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Kiley.
    Mr. Kiley. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for 
organizing this hearing.
    We need to make crime illegal again. I'm encouraged by the 
comments of the Ranking Member, which made reference to these 
flash mobs and the smash and grabs, which shows there's a 
bipartisan interest in doing just that.
    I'm from California, the State where this decriminalization 
agenda is perhaps in its most advanced stage. To see the perils 
of it, you need look no further than what's going on in San 
Francisco as we speak.
    Just yesterday, Mr. Chair, Westfield mall, the famous 
Westfield mall in downtown San Francisco announced it's 
surrendering the property to its lenders, citing the difficult 
operating conditions downtown. Almost every day we're learning 
of new businesses that are closing in San Francisco. In just 
the last few weeks, that includes T-Mobile, Old Navy, 
Nordstrom, Whole Foods, Anthro-
pologie, and many more.
    The population is dramatically declining in the city as 
well. In fact, it's declining faster than any major U.S. city 
in United States history. Faster even than Detroit when it went 
bankrupt. If you walk around parts of San Francisco, the 
conditions are truly horrifying. It's utter lawlessness. The 
subway system, public transportation is on the verge of 
collapse because of many reasons, one of which is people simply 
don't feel safe riding. Indeed, the Governor of California, 
Gavin Newsom, has even said he is sending the National Guard 
into San Francisco to restore order. Now, that seems to be a 
stunt because we haven't seen much action yet. Even he 
recognizes the situation on how dire it is.
    CNN just did an hour-long special titled, ``What Happened 
to San Francisco?'' So, to answer that question, what happened, 
I think we can look at a few things.

    (1)  The laws that have been passed,
    (2)  the approach to law enforcement, and
    (3)  the role of prosecutors.

    On the first count, when it comes to the laws, the Chair 
mentioned Prop 47, which is one of many laws that have been 
passed in California that have in very ill-calculated ways 
lower criminal penalties. This initiative was passed in 2014. 
Yes, it was approved by California voters, but they were misled 
as to what they were voting for. This initiative was titled by 
its supporters, quote, ``Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act.'' 
It lowered the threshold for a felony to over $950. So, you see 
people who just again and again and again go and steal below 
that threshold, and there's no consequence. The retailers don't 
even report what's happening. Now, as the Chair mentioned, 
there's even legislation to stop the stores from trying to stop 
this from happening.
    To the point that one of the witnesses, Mr. Milhiser, made, 
which is that these policies are not truly progressive in any 
meaningful sense of the word. One of the other things that Prop 
47 did is that it took away penalties for drug possession, 
which basically eviscerated the drug court system in 
California, because prosecutors no longer had a leverage to 
encourage offenders to go into drug treatment. So, that's the 
perverse irony, is that laws like Prop 47 have both eroded 
public safety and compromised the capacity of our criminal 
justice system to rehabilitate offenders.
    There have been many other laws along these lines. Prop 57 
passed. That used another trick, which is to classify offenses 
as nonviolent, even though they're often quite violent. Then 
they tell people that's what they're voting for when, 
obviously, it's something much different. You've had this 
Governor and his predecessor have released tens of thousands of 
people early under the banner of executive authority. You had 
what was known as realignment, where prison populations were 
shifted into county jails, which aren't built to deal with 
those sorts of offenders. The list goes on and on and on.
    Then at the same time, you had jurisdictions like San 
Francisco that chose to defund police departments. Now, a lot 
of that has been reversed now because they realize what a 
disaster it was, but the damage has been done in a lot of ways. 
You still have police departments throughout California that 
are having a very, very difficult time with recruitment and 
continue to be understaffed because of this anti-law 
enforcement message that came from some of our State's leading 
politicians.
    Then, finally, you had in places like San Francisco and Los 
Angeles these so-called--I'll adopt that terminology--
progressive prosecutors, the really political prosecutors who 
came in with an agenda and refused to even enforce the laws 
that were there.
    Here is the big takeaway from all of this, which is that 
this decriminalization agenda is massively unpopular in 
California. The District Attorney of San Francisco was 
overwhelmingly recalled from office. By the way, the Trump-
Pence ticket got 12 percent in San Francisco. This isn't some 
conservative bastion. You've had dozens of city councils have 
issued votes of no confidence against George Gascon in Los 
Angeles. California voters overwhelmingly say crime is a major 
problem, and at this point they favor repealing Prop 47 by 2-1.
    So, I thank the Chair for this opportunity to issue this 
warning to other jurisdictions not to follow the California 
example and to marshal whatever Federal support we can to make 
up for the reckless policies of our State's politicians.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Biggs. The gentleman yields.
    The Chair recognizes again the Ranking Member from Texas, 
Ms. Jackson Lee, for her five minutes of questions.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.
    I thank the gentleman from California for giving us an 
overview.
    I think my statement was very clear. We've got to find a 
way to pinpoint just what the extent, damage, violence of 
retail crime, and organized crime. It's very important that we 
give local police the authority and we give them the ability to 
distinguish against a homeless person, teenager, somebody who's 
come into a retail place for one item, or teenagers, so that we 
can focus our resources on keying in to saving lives when 
violent acts generate, and also to really quash this kind of 
retail crime. We've got to get our hands around it.
    So, Mr. Flynn, if you would help me out. There's a study 
conducted by the National Retail Federation that found that 
boosters use money earned from retail theft to meet their basic 
needs or to support a drug habit. Please tell us more about the 
Vibrant Communities Initiative and then how will this program 
prevent vulnerable people from falling prey to organized retail 
crime recruiters. Almost like human trafficking where the folk 
are not prostitutes, but they fall victim to being recruited by 
human traffickers to be prostitutes. Even just recently in my 
community at a high school. So, would you help us with that, 
please?
    Mr. Flynn. Yes, ma'am. So, what you see a lot of times that 
you alluded to are individuals who get caught up in, as I 
characterized before, some of these loosely affiliated groups. 
So, you may have a drug dealer or an individual who is involved 
in human trafficking. Then that individual may have a stable of 
four or five people who are indeed drug addicts or women who 
are caught up in sex trafficking, who they use as boosters to 
go out and steal in stores.
    So, the individuals who are the perpetrators of the crime, 
who are actually in the stores, are, in fact, individuals who 
need help. They have a drug problem. They have a substance 
abuse problem. They have an alcohol problem. Even sometimes a 
mental illness. So, we, obviously, want to help them out. At 
the same time, if there is an individual who is using them to 
go out in the stores, that person needs to be held accountable, 
obviously, and looked at in a different manner.
    So, the initiative is holistic in the sense that we're 
trying to identify who the players are, what their roles are in 
the crime, and give services, and as Mr. Milhiser mentioned, 
diversion programs to those who need it, but at the same time 
hold people accountable who need to be held accountable.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Very quickly, my time is--I should 
probably--shouldn't acknowledge that to the Chair, but let me 
quickly--
    Mr. Biggs. I noticed it.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me quickly go to understanding how we 
distinguish the shoplifting persons, not indicating that that 
is not bad from organized crime, No. 1. Is there a way that 
local law enforcement and the State can collaborate with 
Federal law enforcement on these big organized circumstances?
    So, start first with the shoplifting and organized retail 
crime, both bad, but that's getting a loaf of bread in the old 
days and something else. It's certainly not coming in with a 
gun and killing an innocent person, such as Ms. Mohs--is that 
pronounced right--Ms. Mohs' experience, which is dastardly and 
horrific.
    Mr. Flynn. So, the only way that we can ascertain whether 
or not there is a ``higher up''--let's use that phrase there 
for, as an example--is if one of the perpetrators talks. If a 
defense lawyer comes to me and says, hey, my client got picked 
up for stealing a hundred bucks' worth of stuff, and they want 
to cooperate now and talk about who the higher-ups are, then we 
find out. Then we can also find out through other investigative 
tools. Unless we get some type of intelligence or cooperation 
from the boosters, it's difficult to work our way up the food 
chain.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, are you able to tell between 
shoplifting and organized--
    Mr. Biggs. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Mr. Flynn. Yes, we are able to tell from an individual 
who's just using it for their own personal needs or if they are 
taking the merchandise and then giving it to someone or 
themselves sometimes putting it online for resale, we can tell 
a lot of times.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. Mr. Chair, I do yield, but I 
will have some articles to submit and maybe one more question. 
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Fry from South Carolina.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for having this hearing 
today.
    To our witnesses, thank you, Ms. Mohs. I'm always struck 
when we have people who are victims in crime, just in general, 
who come to this Committee, who testify. It's incredibly brave 
of you to be here. We appreciate it. Thank you for sharing your 
son's story with us.
    We find ourselves in this perplexing situation since I've 
been here in 6 months that we are constantly looking at, 
whether it's New York, whether it's Washington, DC, in the 
Oversight Committee, we are talking about--and the attorneys on 
the panel talked about this pretty easily, the inability of 
district attorneys to prosecute crimes and enforce the laws 
that are on the books. We even had--in the case of New York, we 
even had Democrat city councilmen saying that they weren't--
that the District Attorney was refusing to do his job and has 
increased crime on the streets. Of course, we talk about, in 
this case, organized retail crime.
    I criminals are winning in our society right now. They 
really are. Th're's this wide gulf that exists that we want to 
play footsie and we want to play cute with law enforcement, but 
people are suffering, businesses are suffering, families are 
suffering.
    Just in the district that I represent, the Myrtle Beach 
Police Department just a few years ago, along with Federal 
agents, had a task force that opened an investigation to 
organized retail crime, an estimated $24,000 worth of new in-
the-box merchandise, headphones, Roombas, power tools, nine 
rifles, seven shotguns, an ATV, another ATV, a John Deere, a 
lawnmower, E-Z golf cart--or excuse me, E-Z--GO golf cart, and 
seven trailers. This is just a drop in the bucket. This is just 
in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. We see this time and time 
again.
    That's the problem, is that you guys hit on it very easily, 
which is these things happen and criminals think that they have 
a carte blanche invitation to continue doing these things 
because there are no repercussions for the actions that they 
do.
    Attorney General, I want to turn to you really quick. Last 
year, Congress passed the INFORM Consumers Act requiring online 
marketers to verify the identities of the majority of their 
sellers. We know that stolen goods appear in these marketplaces 
in large quantity. We hear from retailers constantly. The 
INFORM Act goes into effect at the end of this month.
    How would this law help your office be more effective in 
prosecuting ORC cases?
    Mr. Kobach. I think the act will help. The majority of 
goods these days are being fenced--being stolen--sorry, being 
sold by the fences online on these various marketplaces online. 
So, requiring a higher level of certainty and knowing your 
supplier, I guess would be the right way to put it, is 
certainly going to help. Indeed, most of the criminal lead--
well, I won't say most--many of the criminal leads that 
prosecutors do get are in the actual selling of the good online 
and using a number of methods to determine that this is likely 
the same good that was stolen from a Home Depot a month before 
or whatever.
    So, the more we can learn about the transactions and those 
who are selling the goods online, the more tools we will have 
in the toolbox to bring these prosecutions, which need to--
well, if we prosecute more cases, the--it's not rocket 
science--the problem will diminish if we increase the amount of 
prosecution.
    Mr. Fry. In your office, do you coordinate right now with 
retailers on implementation of this to better understand how 
this new tool will build opportunities to prosecute these 
cases?
    Mr. Kobach. We coordinate with retailers a great deal 
already. We have not discussed this new tool yet, but I'm sure 
that we will be. The retailers are actually a very good source 
of information. Like Ms. Mohs' son, many of them have 
individuals whose sole job is to keep track of and try to deter 
and diminish the in-store theft. So, the retailers are an 
invaluable source in prosecuting.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you. Just briefly, part--you know, of this--
I look at this issue--part of this is maybe the--Lululemon 
fired their employees for going after somebody who was 
stealing, right. So, there are some corporate issues that are 
related to this. Part of this is the inability of district 
attorneys to do their job, quite frankly, and prosecute cases.
    The task that we have, at least in Congress, is there--
would it be helpful to have a Federal partner prosecute these 
cases across interstate lines? I'll leave that, Attorney 
General, or to the other lawyers on the panel.
    Mr. Kobach. Yes, I mentioned something about that point. I 
think we have to bring the maximum number of prosecutors to 
bear, period. That means reducing the threshold right now. 
There seems to be, at least in the middle part of the country, 
a $250,000 threshold before the Feds. The prosecutors will be--
in the U.S. attorney's offices will be interested. It would be 
better if they would be interested in interstate cases at a 
lower level.
    In my State, we're bringing State prosecutors to bear so 
the burden doesn't just fall on county attorneys and district 
attorneys. Resources to hire attorneys at all levels are 
important. We need more prosecution to occur.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm out of time. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
    The Ranking Member has some documents she wants to admit 
into the record.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I ask unanimous consent to submit into the record, (1) a 
statement from Trevor Wagener, Chief Economist and Director of 
Research for the Computer and Communications Industry and (2) a 
September 23, 2021, article from The Atlantic, entitled, ``The 
Great Shoplifting Freak-Out: Why is it so hard to figure out if 
America's enormous surge in theft is real?''
    I ask unanimous consent.
    Mr. Biggs. Without objection.
    Mr. Biggs. Now, I'll recognize the gentlelady from Florida, 
Ms. Lee.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Florida is one of nearly three dozen States that have 
passed organized retail crime statutes. We've actually gone one 
step further by launching something called FORCE, which is the 
Florida Organized Retailers Crime Exchange, a task force and 
data base for police, prosecutors, and retailers to work 
together to organize--to identify organized retail theft rings. 
It's been our experience that communication among stakeholders, 
the private sector, law enforcement, both public and private, 
is really a key part of identifying and combatting these 
violent and costly crimes.
    I would like to start with you Mr. is it Milhiser?
    Mr. Milhiser. Yes.
    Ms. Lee. All right. Mr. Milhiser, I know you too have a 
significant background as a former Federal prosecutor. You had 
mentioned this in your testimony, this same concept. Would you 
please elaborate on your experience and your observation on how 
those private partner collaborations with Federal law 
enforcement agencies can rid an important part of really 
combatting this problem?
    Mr. Milhiser. Right. Well, there are examples that have 
been successful. If you look at human trafficking, drugs, 
OCDETF, when we attack kind of the gang problem and the cartels 
coming in from Mexico. So, the best way to attack it is to have 
as many people at the table all kind of pulling their weight 
and doing their job. So, we need local prosecutors there to 
prosecute, oftentimes, the bulk of the cases, but then also the 
Federal prosecutors there to get involved too.
    Federal law enforcement oftentimes can help with the kind 
of technical aspects of these cases. If they're crossing State 
lines, using computers, oftentimes out of the country. These 
are international operations. So, you have the Secret Service 
and the FBI, and you have these other Federal law enforcement 
agencies that can use their expertise. Everyone working 
together collaboratively is the best way to attack the problem.
    The only way it works is if everyone does their job and 
every part of person there. The Feds have to say, yes, we'll 
sit at the table, and we'll actually file charges. I spent a 
long time--and I would guess Mr. Flynn has this problem 
sometimes, too--so working with the Feds on cases sometimes 
they're like, hey, we're too busy, we don't want to file that. 
No, no, you're going to file that, because it's going to help 
what is best for the community.
    So, everyone has to get together and sit down. How can we 
best attack the problem? Everybody has to carry their weight 
and do their job.
    Ms. Lee. Now, you just touched on something that's very 
important there. The collaboration between those Federal law 
enforcement resources, but also local, and the important role 
of working together.
    Would you describe for us the role of local law enforcement 
in that process? We've got the Feds at the table. They're 
providing expertise in resources. Describe for us the role, 
though, of the local on-the-ground law enforcement as well.
    Mr. Milhiser. Well, a hundred percent, they are a big part 
of the equation. We look at law enforcement around the country, 
85 percent of it is State, local, and Tribal. So, the Federal 
law enforcement is a small part of law enforcement in general 
in this country. So, those local individuals have to be used.
    For a long time, I was a State court prosecutor and worked 
with those local sheriffs, worked with the local police, to 
help identify those criminals, help bring them to justice, help 
prosecute cases. So, they play an integral part. It cannot be 
law enforcement in their silos, whether it be FBI or DEA, in 
their silo, sheriffs, police in their silo. They have to be 
talking, they have to be coordinating to best attack the 
problem.
    Ms. Lee. So on that subject, in the event that local law 
enforcement, whether it is a local district attorney, a local 
police chief, in the event that one of the individuals who 
should be at that table and part of that collaboration decides 
not to do their job, whether it is one of those soft-on-crime 
policies, a decision not to prosecute certain offenses, how 
does that affect the overall effectiveness of combatting 
criminal activity in our communities?
    Mr. Milhiser. Well, it has a negative effect, I mean, when 
you don't have everybody pulling their weight and doing their 
job, especially the local prosecutor. So, if the local 
prosecutor is not willing to prosecute these cases, not willing 
to do their part, it has a negative effect.
    I guess, then, the next question is, what do we do about 
that? I think one thing we do is call those prosecutors out. 
Now, it's difficult, obviously, in this forum, but it's for the 
community to become aware of it. I mentioned during my 
testimony an organization. I started the American Center for 
Law and Public Safety with U.S. attorneys from around the 
country. We have law enforcement, local prosecutors to do this 
very thing--to educate the public on what is a good prosecutor, 
what is needed, how can we have safe communities, and to call 
out those bad prosecutors.
    Because people for years took for granted that their local 
prosecutor was going to do their job and prosecute cases. All 
of a sudden, they didn't, crime increased. They're like, oh, my 
gosh, what happened? So, we need to educate the public on what 
is a good prosecutor and assist those with resources. That's 
where the Federal government can come into play. There's often 
scarce resources for local prosecutors. They can assist in that 
way.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
    I'm going to allow the Ranking Member, recognize her for 
one question. I know her, and she is capable of asking what we 
call in the trade a compound question.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Or a running.
    Mr. Biggs. So, I'm trusting her that it's just one 
question.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. It is. It is.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. We thank you, to the Chair, for your 
kindness.
    Attorney General Kobach, am I getting close to 
pronunciation, sir?
    Mr. Kobach. Kobach, yes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much. I've studied this 
issue because the Chair was kind enough to bring it to our 
attention. So, we found a recent workshop on crime trends in 
Kansas, Wichita, with your Police Chief, Joe Sullivan, that 
said that among larger national chains, Wichita ranks among the 
worst retail theft. He went on to say that getting these people 
into treatment would have an unbelievable impact on organized 
retail theft. Because I think it ties into what Mr. Flynn had 
said, because the vast majority of the thieves, they're like 
agents, workers commit these crimes to sell the stolen items 
and buy drugs or get them to their handler.
    So, do you agree with Chief Sullivan's assessment? While 
this is not the only answer, could we not reduce the prevalence 
of these crimes by addressing as a component the current public 
health crisis of drug addiction? So, these people are used--I 
say mules. There's a lot of terminology to utilize in this 
instance.
    Mr. Kobach. I do agree with what the Wichita police chief 
said. The boosters who are drug addicted are recruited so they 
can support their habits. They're recruited by the fences, at 
least in Kansas, who tend to be the ones who are organizing 
these retail crime networks. They're given assignments by the 
fence, what to go steal next, where to steal it. They are used 
as mules. You can also use that analogy in these networks.
    So, certainly, if there are fewer drug-addicted people 
recruitable, then that would reduce the total pool of recruits 
to be boosters. Although, I don't think that alone would solve 
the problem, but it certainly would be a component of the 
problem.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, we certainly want to get rid of the 
fences for sure.
    Mr. Kobach. Yes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee.
    I will recognize myself for five minutes of questioning.
    Ms. Mohs, again, thank you for coming in and sharing your 
son's story and his life with us, and bringing your father with 
you as well.
    I just want to make sure that everyone knows, I want to 
make clear, the individual who murdered your son was--if I 
understood you right, was on probation and had been on 
probation for more than 10 years. Is that fair to say?
    Ms. Mohs. My understanding was that her probation had been 
revoked, and she was in violation as of 2012--I'm sorry, not 
revoked, but in violation of, and she was out on the street.
    Mr. Biggs. I see. A similar situation with the getaway 
driver?
    Ms. Mohs. The getaway driver had been incarcerated for a 
home invasion robbery and was released during COVID in 
California's attempt to reduce inmates.
    Mr. Biggs. All right. Well, thank you. You described it 
correctly. It was a system failure. There was a law on the 
books. She was not to be a possessor. Somehow, she had a gun 
and she used it violently. That's a system failure, in my 
opinion. We hope that we can learn and go forward and change 
the system where we need to make changes. Thank you for sharing 
that.
    I want to get to something that you testified to, Attorney 
General Kobach, and it's right on my experience with other 
things, and that is you talked about the threshold. For 
instance, the U.S. attorney saying if it's an interstate 
transport of thefts, of stolen goods, it's 250,000 bucks. In 
Arizona, the U.S. attorney has basically said they're not going 
to carry--they're not going to charge, for instance, mules 
carrying pot, unless they're carrying several hundred pounds in 
the desert, and they actually still have it on their person 
when they're apprehended.
    How does the raising of those thresholds impede the actual 
enforcement of our law?
    Mr. Kobach. It certainly does, and it's amazing. I think 
one of the things that has surprised me about all this is how 
savvy and how quickly informed the organized retail crime 
networks are. They learn very quickly where their thresholds 
are. Now, some of them are statutory thresholds as to where the 
felony level is, but they will learn what they can get away 
with.
    In an interstate case, that's where the Feds can come in 
and help because, as I mentioned, there's a lack of 
prosecutorial resources generally. If we can get the Feds 
involved in a lower level, that would greatly increase our 
resources. Even looking within the State, like in Kansas where 
we're looking where we can help, the local prosecutors, they 
have a lot--they have a huge pile of cases and a lack of 
resources to address those cases. They may not recognize--and 
this is where Ms. Lee's question is particularly important--
they may not have enough information to recognize that the two 
thefts at this Home Depot were committed by the same network 
that, in the neighboring county, did five thefts at a Lowe's 
and a Walmart, et cetera.
    So, by having this information sharing, which we're doing 
in Kansas with the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, we can put 
two and two together, connect the dots, and realize that this 
isn't just a theft of $900 at one store, it's part of a much 
larger network that's stolen $200,000. That gets the attention 
not only of local attorney--prosecuting attorneys, but 
certainly that's where our State resources come into play as 
well.
    Mr. Biggs. So, I am intrigued by the notion that there are 
different levels. I agree with that, having been in the 
judicial--actually prosecuting--I prosecuted some shoplift 
cases. They were never--we rarely saw an organization. We saw 
small single one-offs. Now, we see these organizations.
    I would venture to say that not every booster is actually 
necessarily a drug addict. Some of them are engaged in criminal 
conduct. I wanted your opinion on that, Mr. Milhiser.
    Mr. Milhiser. Well, I guess to follow what Ms. Jackson Lee 
said, when we talk about whether it's somebody that's homeless, 
there's all kinds of issues that these individuals that are 
arrested have. Homeless, substance abuse. When we let them out 
of jail or prison, we need to as a society and a good 
prosecutor does, put them in the best position not to re-
offend, right. We want to reduce recidivism.
    Mr. Biggs. What does recidivism rank?
    Mr. Milhiser. Oh, it's incredibly high. I think we would 
all say that it's more than half. They get out and they re-
offend. Especially if they go back to that same environment 
they were in, they're going to re-offend.
    So, what do we have to do? We have to look and say, 
employment, housing, substance abuse, and mental health 
treatment. Those four things. Look at that, and what can we do? 
That's where we talk about collaboration. It's not just law 
enforcement. It is other government services. It's not for-
profits. It's all those individuals in a community that can 
help when these individuals get out to keep them crime free.
    Mr. Biggs. Well, thank you.
    I again thank the witnesses. My time has expired.
    I appreciate every Member of the Committee being here and 
participating.
    Again, this is a real serious, serious issue that needs, in 
my opinion, continued elevation of notoriety so people will 
respond, particularly at the State and local levels. The 
Federal level, we have the things we should be doing, but we 
certainly want to encourage our State and local levels whose 
resources are stretched thin to actually enforce the law and 
really help out here.
    Thanks again for being here. With that, we are adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:42 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

    The record for this hearing by the Members of the 
Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance is 
available at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?Event ID=116093.

                                 [all]